(vi) Conclusion.

1. Irving's editing of the Ribbentrop note is a blatant manipulation of the evidence, and is also based on testimony that is itself thoroughly unreliable. By omitting a key part of Ribbentrop's statements, Irving conveys a completely misleading impression of what he said. Not only is Ribbentrop an unreliable and discredited witness anyway, but none of the arguments which Irving musters in defence of his editing justifies this manipulation. Another link in Irving's much-trumpeted chain of documents proving Hitler opposed or at least did not know about the extermination of the Jews (insofar as, in his later work, Irving admits this happened at all) thus turns out to be so brittle that it falls apart at the first critical glance. All of the links, indeed, turn out to be based on the manipulation and falsification of the historical record.

2. If Irving's attempt to exculpate Hitler involves the use of such scandalously unprofessional methods, then what of his other historical work? This is the subject of the next section of this report.